SUN EDITORIAL:

More sound science?

Again the federal government fails in its efforts to provide standards for Yucca Mountain

Thursday, Oct. 2, 2008 | 2:07 a.m.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced its radiation health standard for the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. The standard itself sounds innocuous, setting the radiation level at 15 millirems — about equivalent to an X-ray — a year for the first 10,000 years of the project.

But Americans should have no confidence in that standard or in the Energy Department’s plan to build a dump that can meet the standard. The Yucca Mountain project, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has been a failure, and this standard shows how politics — not science — have prevailed.

For example, the standard comes four years after a federal court ordered the EPA to set a new standard, after tossing out the previous one because it failed to pass scientific muster. This revision seems to be nothing more than a warmed over version of what the court and the scientific community dismissed.

What may be more astounding is that the standard comes four months after the Energy Department submitted its application to build the nuclear waste dump to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Shouldn’t the Energy Department have waited to see the final standard it is supposed to meet before applying?

It is no wonder Nevadans think the fix is in. After all, the federal government has consistently changed standards and regulations to fit its needs because it has failed to provide any sound science, as President Bush once promised, to prove the viability of the plan.

As well, the Energy Department has yet to adequately answer critical questions such as how it will safely transport at least 77,000 tons of deadly waste across the country. That’s vitally important considering nearly 40 percent of the population lives within five miles of the proposed routes.

The bottom line is this: The Energy Department has spent more than 25 years and $13.5 billion on the project and has only a hole in the ground — and a track record of shoddy work — to show for it.

Disgraceful.

Discussion: 3 comments so far…

By Future2012

10/2/08 at 7:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

The standard itself is normal, reasonable and well below comparable requirements across the U.S.

Setting the radiation level at 15 millirems -- about equivalent to an X-ray -- a year for the first 10,000 years of the project, is consistent with long standing public policy.

The fact is that there are no theoretical farmers living 24/7 on the site boundary fencepost 11 miles south of the Yucca site at Amargosa Valley that actual could uptake the dose.

The LV Sun cannot understand that the acceptance criteria is less than a plane ride.

Have Barbara Greenspun, or Brian Greenspun, Lisa Mascaro, Micheal Kelly, or Micheal Campell taken a plane ride, or gotten an x-ray this year.
By Ardent

10/3/08 at 12:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

For Pete's sake, these Sun editors will stoop to the worst, most illogical argumentative strategies in their attempt to perpetuate the Big Lie that our state politicians and local media have been pushing for years now.

It's a classic case of investing all of one's emotional energy and self-esteem in a belief that later turns out to be false, only to defend that belief stubbornly because acknowledging the truth -- even to oneself -- would be psychologically devastating.

It is truly fortunate that the Sun editors are being tried in the court of public opinion rather than a court where evidence and rational argument are required.

After conceding that the EPA standard "sounds innocuous," which it is, the Sun alleges that we should "have no confidence" in that standard.

Why? Because it has something to do with the Yucca Mountain Project.

See the conflation here?

I am so sick of these lying liars masquerading as credible editors.

The court of appeals DID NOT initially reject the EPA dose standard proposal on the basis of dose level, but rather on the basis of time period. The court did so because the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) had recommended a longer period of coverage, and the EPA had only drafted a standard for 10,000 years.

The proposed dose level (15 mrem), and the data and analysis used to formulate it, DID NOT "fail to pass scientific muster." All the NAS wanted was a corresponding analysis (and proposed dose limit) for longer periods (up to a million years).

The court of appeals, after throwing out 10 or so other contentions from the State of Nevada, sided with the NAS on this one point, and thus the State and its propaganda machine trumpeted as a victory a decision that was otherwise a shattering defeat for their cause.

Now, the EPA has complied with the court and offered a dose standard for after 10,000 years -- one that accords with virtually every single domestic and international standard -- but the uninquiring minds at the Sun want to believe that the "fix is in."

Most laughable, and most "Disgraceful" of all, is the idea of the Sun editors implying a worldwide conspiracy among nuclear agencies, scientific organizations, and health experts.

We all know that this is nothing more than a "projection" -- onto their chosen opponent -- of the editors' own obvious conspiracy to defeat the repository and preserve their painfully childish delusions.
By Energy4u

10/3/08 at 1:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

The only thing that is disgraceful is that the Sun is so predictable in that it always, without exception, finds fault with the science of Yucca and always, again without exception, buys into the whatever Bob Loux and his office says. How can a thousand plus of the top scientist in the world always be wrong and Loux always right?

In my opinion it is not responsible to comment on something like the radiation standard without first carefully reading it. The standard is over 130 pages long. Did the editors take the time to truly understand what it says? Do the editors and reports truly understand what the underlying issues are? What the National Academy of Science input was? Only they can honestly answer these questions, but I'm fairly certain the public not only knows the answer, but also has a strong held view on the credibility of the various players.

Has anyone ever noticed that if DOE (or the EPA or any other federal agency involved with Yucca) does something in a short period of time the opponents argue that DOE is rushing and doing shoddy work and if they take a long time to do something -- well then DOE is incompetent or wasteful or hiding something. The list of contradictions goes on and on and the reality of the situation is painfully obvious to all observers.

Back to the standard. Do the editors realize have any concept of just how conservative the standard is -- that the person being exposed to is assumed to be living 12 miles from the site, 24/7, eating and drinking only food products derived from the immediate area? And still can only be exposed in a full year to roughly 1/10th of the radiation of a single CAT scan.

Please -- can we finally stop the name calling and rhetoric and truly let science decide?